However... if the original poster feels up to it, he might decide for fight rather than flight.
I'm not a confrontational guy, but I like to get my point across when I think it matters.
Assuming the original poster has a significant share of the company, even if he retires it is very worthwhile (for the good of the company) to convince the CEO of a few points that are essential to the well-being of the company:
1) Recognising technical talent is very hard. This CEO is no doubt able to recognise management talent (or lack thereof) but that doesn't mean he will be able to pick a VP of Engineering who actually has technical ability.
The VPofE position needs strong technical ability to be able to interface effectively with the dev team (no developer will have any respect for a technically weak VPofE and they'll play him like a fiddle), and so he should be recruited by both the CEO and CTO together.
2) If the original poster doesn't enjoy the whole politics game, he should be happy to step aside out of the political line of fire. However, the VPofE (particularly as a new hire) still needs to be held accountable to someone technically qualified. The CEO ain't it. Management meetings involving the CEO and VPofE should involve both the CEO and the CTO, with the CTO there to ensure that the VPofE is not exploiting the technical inability of the CEO.
3) There's nothing especially wrong with the CTO stepping out of day to day development. However, that's a different job than being part of the dev team. So what should the CTO do? Well, there's plenty to do, I presume, in terms of driving the strategic direction of the company and ensuring the technology part of the company functions well with the non-technology part (which apparently is not the case at the moment). I think it would be a very effective shift for the poster to start focusing on "the real problem": "the front office's lack of vision and an inability to communicate clearly whatever vision they might have". That can largely be done by walking around and talking to people.
Freed from operational and dev duties, I think one of the CTO's primary respponsibility becomes to close that gap - and then any other "high-level" gaps that exist.
In short:
* Let the VPofE deal with development and managing the dev team.
* Hold him accountable in joint meetings with the CEO
* Focus on fixing the larger problems between the company's tech and non-tech silos
Of course, this requires building a stronger relationship with the CEO. However, this need not be such a tall task once the development responsibilities are delegated away, since those appear to be a big point of friction. Also, I imagine the CEO will respect this kind of reaction (much more than "Really? Then I quit! cries", anyway).
However... if the original poster feels up to it, he might decide for fight rather than flight.
I'm not a confrontational guy, but I like to get my point across when I think it matters.
Assuming the original poster has a significant share of the company, even if he retires it is very worthwhile (for the good of the company) to convince the CEO of a few points that are essential to the well-being of the company:
1) Recognising technical talent is very hard. This CEO is no doubt able to recognise management talent (or lack thereof) but that doesn't mean he will be able to pick a VP of Engineering who actually has technical ability. The VPofE position needs strong technical ability to be able to interface effectively with the dev team (no developer will have any respect for a technically weak VPofE and they'll play him like a fiddle), and so he should be recruited by both the CEO and CTO together.
2) If the original poster doesn't enjoy the whole politics game, he should be happy to step aside out of the political line of fire. However, the VPofE (particularly as a new hire) still needs to be held accountable to someone technically qualified. The CEO ain't it. Management meetings involving the CEO and VPofE should involve both the CEO and the CTO, with the CTO there to ensure that the VPofE is not exploiting the technical inability of the CEO.
3) There's nothing especially wrong with the CTO stepping out of day to day development. However, that's a different job than being part of the dev team. So what should the CTO do? Well, there's plenty to do, I presume, in terms of driving the strategic direction of the company and ensuring the technology part of the company functions well with the non-technology part (which apparently is not the case at the moment). I think it would be a very effective shift for the poster to start focusing on "the real problem": "the front office's lack of vision and an inability to communicate clearly whatever vision they might have". That can largely be done by walking around and talking to people.
Freed from operational and dev duties, I think one of the CTO's primary respponsibility becomes to close that gap - and then any other "high-level" gaps that exist.
In short:
* Let the VPofE deal with development and managing the dev team.
* Hold him accountable in joint meetings with the CEO
* Focus on fixing the larger problems between the company's tech and non-tech silos
Of course, this requires building a stronger relationship with the CEO. However, this need not be such a tall task once the development responsibilities are delegated away, since those appear to be a big point of friction. Also, I imagine the CEO will respect this kind of reaction (much more than "Really? Then I quit! cries", anyway).